Robert Collins <robe...@robertcollins.net> added the comment: On Sun, 2009-04-05 at 10:15 +0000, Antoine Pitrou wrote: > Antoine Pitrou <pit...@free.fr> added the comment: > > > Our experience in bzr (we use this heavily, and migrated to it > > incrementally across our 17K fixture suite) is that we rarely need to > > use cleanups on dependent resources, and when we need to it has been > > very easy to migrate the dependent resource to use cleanups as well. > > I'm baffled. If you say you don't care about the order, why are you > arguing at all?
I didn't say I don't care; I do - I care that it is robust and hard to misuse. Having addCleanup() when called from a tearDown lead to cleanups not being called would be an easy route to misuse. > [...] > > sequence 2: cleanup before teardown prevents using cleanups in base > > class setup methods > > The point is that sequence 2 can already be emulated using careful > "try...finally" in tearDown, while sequence 1 cannot. That is, sequence > 1 *needs* the addCleanup, while for sequence 2 it is a mere additional > convenience. I don't understand; neither sequence works - they are showing how any choice [that retains the current simple proposed mechanism] cannot interact without some failure modes with tearDown. Whichever point we choose to have cleanups execute can be entirely emulated using careful try:finally: in tearDown methods, so surely this is not an argument for either order. -Rob ---------- _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <http://bugs.python.org/issue5679> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
